Lists loan contracts per bank connection (GET /loans). Pass items as an array of connection selectors (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name) — one entry per connection to fetch; multiple connections are queried sequentially with rate-limit spacing. OMIT items to list loans across ALL linked banks. Returns { results, errors } per connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, setting a positive safety baseline. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: multiple connections are processed sequentially with rate-limit spacing, and the return shape is { results, errors } per connection. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then providing usage details. All three sentences carry essential information with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description usefully provides the per-connection return shape { results, errors } and explains both invocation modes. It does not detail pagination or the individual loan contract fields, but for a list operation with a single optional parameter, this is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines `items` as an array of strings with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that each string is a connection selector (item_id uuid, connector_id, or connector_name), that one entry represents one connection, and that omitting the parameter lists all banks. This is a substantial semantic addition, though it leaves the exact string format for selector types implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists loan contracts per bank connection and includes the GET endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling get_loan_detail by focusing on listing versus detail, and clarifies the two operating modes (specific connections vs all banks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly explains when to pass `items` (for specific connections) and when to omit it (for all linked banks), and notes sequential querying with rate-limit spacing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_loan_detail for single-loan details, so it lacks a full when-not/alternatives comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct, with clear descriptions differentiating them. Some overlap between openfinance_list_accounts and openfinance_get_accounts_detail, but descriptions clarify that one returns summaries and the other full details. The marketplace tool is very detailed and avoids confusion with Open Finance tools.
The Open Finance tools follow a consistent openfinance_verb_noun pattern, but other tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) do not use a prefix. This mix of conventions reduces overall consistency, though within the Open Finance subset the pattern is clear.
24 tools is a reasonable count for a platform covering authentication, marketplace, and detailed Open Finance operations. The number is slightly high but each tool has a clear purpose and none seem redundant.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of bank connections: listing accounts, transactions, credit card bills, investments, loans, force syncing, provider status, and category management. The marketplace tool also allows extending functionality. No obvious gaps for the intended financial data domain.